Theists sometimes DO ask questions.

[Zzyzx]

.
Theists sometimes DO ask questions. Here is an example from a current thread:

And now, I ask you a question.

What if you’re right?

Right about what?

Reading my signature with some comprehension indicates that my position is that ANY of the thousands of proposed 'gods' MAY be real and may affect human lives – AND that I await verifiable evidence upon which to base an informed, intelligent, reasoned decision.

Is there any reason that I should 'hurry up' and make a decision when the ONLY 'evidence' presented consists of unverifiable tales and testimonials (ancient or modern) plus emotional appeals? I do not take anyone's unverifiable word as a basis for making ANY important decisions. Should I make an exception for religious matters? If so, why?

What if mindless, random energy is “all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be�?

I take NO position regarding 'mindless, random energy'. Kindly debate what I actually present.

What if all we are is a temporary arrangement of matter? A pattern, here today and gone, forever, tomorrow?

Notice that I take no position on that matter. Kindly debate what I actually say rather than things I do not say.

What possible difference could that make? In fact — what possible difference could anything make?

My life and the lives of (some) others make a difference to me, as does the environment, because I (we) live in the real world.

And what difference would it make if I believed otherwise?

What you believe could not possibly make any less difference to me. Discussing / debating these ideas with you involved is simply a way for me to present READERS with ideas that contrast with those presented by Theists.

I trust that some / many readers are fully capable of evaluating the merits, credibility, verifiability of what is presented and to use whatever they find has merit in their own thinking.

If I chose to believe a complex, imaginary fable about an eternal Mind that created a space-time environment; a fable which explained the cause of man’s depravity, and the way out of it —even if it was all just an ancient and ongoing fabrication, what difference does it make?

That belief makes NO difference UNLESS and UNTIL it is presented in public debate as though true. In which case, I challenge any claim of truth and accuracy – asking for verifiable evidence to support the pronouncements.

When the 'evidence' presented is nothing more than unverifiable tales and testimonials (ancient or modern, oral or written), readers are invited to consider its credibility.

And what difference does it make that energy occasionally arranges itself in patterns such as the deformed child you pictured?

I pictures no deformed child. Perhaps there are some wires crossed?

Or generates patterns in the matter that composes human brains that motivates them to slaughter each other over territories or genetics or ideas?

Human brains have great potential to instigate actions in all manner of directions – which include slaughtering people or helping people.

Many Religionists seem to think that religion is what keeps them from slaughtering (or raping or stealing or whatever) and that religion is what motivates them to do benevolent things. Perhaps that is true for them personally – but does not extend beyond them to everyone else.

What difference does it make what I do with my own little pattern of energy, during the brief period of time it is integrated and possesses the consciousness to make determinations as to what it does?

It makes no difference at all to me what you 'do with your own little pattern of energy' PROVIDED it does not affect me or others I care about.

And if, for instance, someone should be in the way of my obtaining some objective that would please my consciousness, what difference does it make what I do to them in order to remove them as an obstacle?

If I am the 'obstacle to be removed' so someone can accomplish an objective, they are likely to 'meet their maker' before intended (any my attitude is not hypothetical).

I’m just asking. Do you have an answer for me?

I typically attempt to answer coherent questions. I am always prepared to substantiate any claims I make or arguments I present.

Is it possible that even if your belief system is true,

You have shown that you have absolutely no comprehension of my belief system.

and mindless matter and energy is all that ever was or will be:

I do not and have not thought or said anything suggesting 'mindless matter'. That is a 'stinky fish' (red herring) thrown in, perhaps to try to make an argument.

that it would be BETTER if we lived as though we were subject to living forever, based on what we do during our temporary pattern of consciousness, before we revert back to our eternal elements of mindless matter-energy?

I see no 'better' in real life by those who profess to being 'subject to . . .� some sort of afterlife. Christians who preach such things are incarcerated at rates no 'better' than other groups, have divorce rates that are no 'better' than others, and have half a million abortions per year in the US (while condemning the practice).

WHERE is the 'better'?

Even if that would mean “living a lie�, so to speak?

Those who find benefit in 'living a lie' are welcome to do so. I prefer to live by what I can understand and learn about the real world.

Or would that make any difference, either?

Many would apparently be LOST without their religion telling them what to think and do.

And if so — in what way?

Perhaps those who rely upon one of the thousands of gods or thousands of religions are well advised to keep doing so (to avoid running amok if they had to rely upon their own ethics, judgment, discernment, decision-making).

However, the dependent should not attempt to inflict their limitations and personal problems onto others – who do not share those limitations and problems.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Right about what?

Volbrigade wrote:

What if mindless, random energy is “all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be�?

I take NO position regarding 'mindless, random energy'. Kindly debate what I actually present.

Volbrigade wrote:

What if all we are is a temporary arrangement of matter? A pattern, here today and gone, forever, tomorrow?

Notice that I take no position on that matter. Kindly debate what I actually say rather than things I do not say.

Volbrigade wrote:

And what difference does it make that energy occasionally arranges itself in patterns such as the deformed child you pictured?

I pictures no deformed child. Perhaps there are some wires crossed?

My bad. I made a tactical error, in my conversation with you and OC, here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... d596746c7a

I merely wished to include you both in on a question posed to DI, here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 787#844787

I assumed, all three of you being non-theists who put their faith in science and its ability to arrive at the concrete, empirical, measurable conclusion that all that exists is matter, and there is no spiritual dimension, and certainly no God --

that agreeing there, you held roughly the same views; and the questions posed could fairly be addressed to all three. It now appears that you are not in agreement with DI, and take no position at all on the matter -- which I confess seems strange to me, as you are someone who is an active denizen on a site which discusses these "ultimate issues" -- where do we come from? what is the nature of our reality? what is its/our purpose (etc.) -- as part of its titular purpose.

Even stranger is the opening of another thread to vehemently address matters on which you take no position.

I'll admit my share of culpability -- I should have linked to the thread I excerpted, as I did above. Things that one assumes are self-evident are often not; i.e., the fact that my questions were addressed to another poster, who posted the picture which I described.

Materialists, non-Theists -- Whateverists -- I must say, tend to be rather concrete in their thinking, as befits their belief that concrete matter is all that exists. And they don't seem to do well with subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc.

That's just an observation, worth precisely as much as, e.g.,

"Perhaps those who rely upon one of the thousands of gods or thousands of religions are well advised to keep doing so (to avoid running amok if they had to rely upon their own ethics, judgment, discernment, decision-making).

However, the dependent should not attempt to inflict their limitations and personal problems onto others – who do not share those limitations and problems."

Plus, perhaps, just a little bit more?

[Zzyzx]

.

I assumed, all three of you being non-theists who put their faith in science and its ability to arrive at the concrete, empirical, measurable conclusion that all that exists is matter, and there is no spiritual dimension, and certainly no God

Rather than making assumptions regarding the debate position of others it is prudent to ASK and to UNDERSTAND. Let's re-read my signature and see how that applies.

that agreeing there, you held roughly the same views; and the questions posed could fairly be addressed to all three.

A blanket approach is often inadvisable.

It now appears that you are not in agreement with DI, and take no position at all on the matter -- which I confess seems strange to me, as you are someone who is an active denizen on a site which discusses these "ultimate issues" -- where do we come from? what is the nature of our reality? what is its/our purpose (etc.) -- as part of its titular purpose.

I am a representative of reality in a land of fantasy, imagination, conjecture, folklore, myth, legend, and/or theology.

Notice that Forum sub-titles include a rather broad range of options (not restricted to “ultimate issues�) which include:

“Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues�

“Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths�

"A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)"

I do not pretend to know “ where do we come from? what is the nature of our reality? what is its/our purpose� OR 'how did the universe originate' OR 'how did life begin'. I await verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, reasoned decision.

In the meantime, not knowing answers to those questions has NO effect upon my real life decisions or actions.

Even stranger is the opening of another thread to vehemently address matters on which you take no position.

“Vehemently address�? Where the heck does that come from?

Vehement is defined as: zealous; ardent; impassioned: characterized by rancor or anger; violent: strongly emotional; intense or passionate: www.dictionary.com/

If the 'vehement� reflects some sort of personal affront or emotionalism, try to focus on the issues and not personal responses.

Materialists, non-Theists -- Whateverists -- I must say, tend to be rather concrete in their thinking, as befits their belief that concrete matter is all that exists.

Let's re-read my signature: “ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision.�

How can one even WARP that enough to delude themselves into believing that is “belief that concrete matter is all that exists�?

Are you confusing me (Zzyzx) with someone else (or with an imaginary character)?

And they don't seem to do well with subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc.

There may be a place for subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc – but those do not fit well into honorable and reasoned debate (though often attempted by those who wish to obfuscate and play word games in lieu of presenting reasoned arguments supported by verifiable evidence.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

Volbrigade wrote:

Materialists, non-Theists -- Whateverists -- I must say, tend to be rather concrete in their thinking, as befits their belief that concrete matter is all that exists.

Let's re-read my signature: “ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision.�

As I told the other guy (TotN), it is both sophist and unsophisticated to demand verifiable evidence for that which is outside the empirical, measurable confines of our bounded reality. Besides, when it comes to the forensic science involved with natural history -- which is the ground for the debate with regard to origins and development -- all evidence is circumstantial, and subject to interpretation.

Speaking of which -- did you ever come up with an example of such forensic evidence from the past, that is verifiable, to support the claim that microbes turned into men, over time?

How can one even WARP that enough to delude themselves into believing that is “belief that concrete matter is all that exists�?

Are you confusing me (Zzyzx) with someone else (or with an imaginary character)?

You don't know how hard I am "clamping my jaws shut" -- figuratively -- in order to not say "all you non-theists look alike."

I suppose the line between you and TotN blurred a bit. With a bit of DI thrown in, for good measure. I won't apologize. I have no idea WHAT you believe. Oh, that's right -- you don't know. Then I really don't see what we have to discuss.

Volbrigade wrote:

And they don't seem to do well with subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc.

There may be a place for subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc – but those do not fit well into honorable and reasoned debate (though often attempted by those who wish to obfuscate and play word games in lieu of presenting reasoned arguments supported by verifiable evidence.

Which is why I stay away from the debate forums. They always end up hamstrung in formality and legalism, technicalities and semantics; declarations of victory when demands for a video of God go unmet. A "chasing after wind".

As if God was subject to the scientific laws He imposed upon His creation!

Science is but ONE of the methods we have for searching out His truth, and the meaning of this world, and our lives within it. They are much too mysterious, too wonderful, too meaningful, to be explained with a technological instrument or device (except, perhaps, for a guitar or a piano ) .

"Metaphors reign where mysteries reside."

[Divine Insight]

I assumed, all three of you (Zzyzx, OnceConvinced and Divine Insight) being non-theists who put their faith in science and its ability to arrive at the concrete, empirical, measurable conclusion that all that exists is matter, and there is no spiritual dimension, and certainly no God --

that agreeing there, you held roughly the same views; and the questions posed could fairly be addressed to all three. It now appears that you are not in agreement with DI, and take no position at all on the matter --

This is an absolutely false representation of my position. And I have attempted to make this clear to Volbrigade on multiple occasions, correcting him on his error concerning this very specific point repeatedly.

I do not hold that science claims that all that exists is matter and there is no spiritual dimension or God. That's utterly false. In fact, there is nothing in science that I have ever seen that makes this claim, and science has been my preferred field of study since early grade-school. I have spent a lifetime in various scientific careers, and before retiring I taught physics in college. Nowhere in that entire experience have I ever encountered anything that has science proclaiming that all that exists is matter, or that there is no spiritual dimension or God.

So to claim that I hold this view is utter nonsense. It's absolutely false, yet Volbrigade has continually posted that this is my view repeatedly even after having been corrected by me on this very point multiple times.

It's getting to the point where I'm starting to question his honesty. I find it difficult that someone can be corrected so many times yet refuse to accept that correction.

In fact, both Zzyzx and OnceConvinced will gladly confirm that I have held the position of being agnostic for all the years I've been on this forum. I won't even accept the label of "atheist" in general. However, I will gladly accept that label when it comes to the Hebrew God of the Bible which I hold can easily be shown to be false via the Bible itself. No science is even required.

Zzyzx and OnceConvinced will also verify that I have been posting an interest in both Buddhism and Wicca ever since I've been here as well, and that I have openly confessed to partaking in spiritual and mystical rituals. I simply make no claims that they are anything more than purely "Faith-Based" activities. I don't claim that the there exists any verifiable evidence to support them.

So for you, Volbrigade, to post that I hold a position of pure secular materialism and that I proclaim that science supports this view and has concluded this worldview, is flat out false.

And I have corrected you on this multiple times already.

Please don't make me correct you again. Because the next time I need to correct you at least Zzyzx and OnceConvinced will be vividly aware that you have already been corrected on this false accusation that you keep repeating.

They can point to this post right here!

Don't ever claim that I hold a worldview of pure materialism again, and don't ever claim that I support that science has concluded a worldview of pure materialism. Both of those accusations made toward me on your behalf are absolutely false.

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's re-read my signature: “ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision.�

As I told the other guy (TotN), it is both sophist and unsophisticated to demand verifiable evidence for that which is outside the empirical, measurable confines of our bounded reality. Besides, when it comes to the forensic science involved with natural history -- which is the ground for the debate with regard to origins and development -- all evidence is circumstantial, and subject to interpretation.

Speaking of which -- did you ever come up with an example of such forensic evidence from the past, that is verifiable, to support the claim that microbes turned into men, over time?

Have I made that claim? Since I have NOT, it is irrational to expect me to provide evidence for a claim that I have not made.

Are you confusing me (Zzyzx) with someone else (or with an imaginary character)?

You don't know how hard I am "clamping my jaws shut" -- figuratively -- in order to not say "all you non-theists look alike."

That would not be a problem if you debated ISSUES rather than personalities.

Is it too difficult to discuss ideas rather than people? Do you realize that if trying to debate issues you have nothing to present other than hearsay, conjecture, opinion, and tales that cannot be shown to be true and accurate?

I suppose the line between you and TotN blurred a bit. With a bit of DI thrown in, for good measure. I won't apologize. I have no idea WHAT you believe.

I agree that you do not. However, that information is readily available in my signature (bottom of every post) which clearly states: "My theistic position is Non-Theist tending toward Ignosticism (not Agnosticism). ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision.�

Oh, that's right -- you don't know.

CORRECTION: YOU don't know. However, I know that regarding 'gods', I refuse to make a decision about the proposed 'gods' that is based on “take my word for it (or his or this book)� – tall tales, testimonials, myths, legends, fables, religion promotion stories, etc.

Is there ANY evidence of ANY kind that does not depend on me taking someone's word (written or oral) about supernatural entities and events – or anything about religion?

Then I really don't see what we have to discuss.

Feel free to retire from discussion / debate whenever you deem appropriate.

There may be a place for subtlety, irony, metaphor, analogy, lyricism, poetry, symbol, macrocodes, etc – but those do not fit well into honorable and reasoned debate (though often attempted by those who wish to obfuscate and play word games in lieu of presenting reasoned arguments supported by verifiable evidence.

Which is why I stay away from the debate forums. They always end up hamstrung in formality and legalism, technicalities and semantics; declarations of victory when demands for a video of God go unmet. A "chasing after wind".

Yes, formalities, technicalities, semantics SUCH AS “Demonstrate that what you say is true and accurate�. That seems to be a great stumbling block for Apologists / Theists when they are away from protected environments with fellow believers – and encounter informed opposition.

As if God was subject to the scientific laws He imposed upon His creation!

That is a claim stated as fact – and it ASSUMES knowledge of 'God'. In honorable and reasoned debate or discussion one who makes claims of fact (implying knowledge), they ARE responsible for demonstrating that they speak truth.

Science is but ONE of the methods we have for searching out His truth, and the meaning of this world, and our lives within it.

Correction: Science is a method for learning about the real world. It has NOT been demonstrated that any of the thousands of proposed 'gods' is involved.

Feel free to show how TRUTH can be known about 'God' that doesn't require taking someone's word that they know.

They are much too mysterious, too wonderful, too meaningful, to be explained with a technological instrument or device (except, perhaps, for a guitar or a piano)

Another claim without substance or substantiation.

Many Apologists seem to think that THEY understand that sort of thing – but

"Metaphors reign where mysteries reside."

Fantasy reigns where imagination rules.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Volbrigade wrote:

I assumed, all three of you (Zzyzx, OnceConvinced and Divine Insight)...

Oh, Lord...

I meant to type "Tired of the Nonsense".

Yikes. I almost did the same thing in my last post, but corrected it in time, there. I'm sorry -- it really is hard to tell you guys (non-theists) apart. You all share the same quality of "exchanging a lie for the truth". Slightly, and irrelevantly, different lies...

"How monotonously the same are the sinners! And how gloriously different, the saints!"



Good night. I'm going to bed. :sleep:

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Notice that people who cannot defend their own position often obsess / fixate on the position and personality of opposition debaters RATHER than focusing on ISSUES.

That is a common ploy for those who are unable to debate honorably and reasonably the ISSUES that are subject of threads.

Perhaps they fool some people and even themselves . . .

[Divine Insight]

I'm sorry -- it really is hard to tell you guys (non-theists) apart. You all share the same quality of "exchanging a lie for the truth". Slightly, and irrelevantly, different lies...

"How monotonously the same are the sinners! And how gloriously different, the saints!"

Sounds like something someone would quote who views themselves to be superior to another group of people and associates themselves with saints.

Apparently you accept Lewis' view that anyone who doesn't believe like you should just be viewed as a "sinner".

I think you've just revealed some obvious prejudice here.

[Divine Insight]

.
[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Notice that people who cannot defend their own position often obsess / fixate on the position and personality of opposition debaters RATHER than focusing on ISSUES.

That is a common ploy for those who are unable to debate honorably and reasonably the ISSUES that are subject of threads.

Perhaps they fool some people and even themselves . . .

Well, I'll grant him the typo in this case. But I have had problems with him accusing of this same worldview repeatedly in the past even though I have explained that it's not my position.

I don't claim that there can be no spiritual essence to reality, and I certainly don't claim that this is the position of science either.

But I do renounce Hebrew mythology as being clearly self-contradictory, immoral, and utterly absurd.

I won't deny that charge.